...but to insinuate that the SEC just has flat out more difficult OOC schedules than the Big 12 is mostly false...

...except that it's entirely true.

For the TAMU's UK's, and Arky's in the SEC, there's UF's, USC's, and UGA's to make up for it. There's NOBODY doing that in the Big XII.

What half the Big XII is doing is going to kill the other on the computers. You can take comfort in your schools' brands and name, but their work will not statistically hold up if this is how they continue do business down there.

Way to miss the point, the Big 12 plays 10 BCS calibur games, the SEC plays 9. The SEC is playing fewer quality opponents while the Big 12 plays more even with the weaker schedules of KU/KSU/TT/Bay.

And I haven't brought my school into this conversation because my schools doing fine with 2 of 3 OOC starting this year till 2020 already on the schedule. USC, tOSU, Ole Miss, BYU, UCLA, Maryland, Cal, Arky and ND just to name a few which shows how informed your last sentence was...http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/big-12/ ... ghorns.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Besides the point wasn't me defending the Big 12, it was more so me defending this stupid vision the OOC scheduling matters SO much. When you look at the polls, the record and name is #1 and 2 scheduling is only a tie breaker. If anyone honestly thinks an undefeated Big 12/Pac12/B1G/ACC champ won't make it into the playoff then you're looney tunes.

If we're talking about 1 loss then YES this matters more but still the brand matters (why Boise might make it in one day but Nevada most likely won't).

fighting muskie wrote:

Tkalmus--didn't mean to get your feathers ruffled but you are preaching to the choir by telling my how weak the SEC schedules OOC. All of the Power 5 conferences should be looking to the PAC12 and Big 10 for scheduling models. I applaud both leagues for having or moving to 9 game League schedule. The PAC 12 schools are always scheduling decent opponents from east of the Rockies and the MWC schools they play are not automatic wins. The Big 10 has made a bold move by doing away with FCS opponents--a move the other leagues should follow. The Big 10 has also come up with an unconventional plan to pair the best of the east and west divisions in cross divisional play. Additionally the Big 10 and PAC 12 champs have to play that all important conference title game--something a Big 12 winner doesn't have to do.

no problem muskie, just the tone of some of what was said above I disagree with. I hate weak OOC games and want an FCS ban (or limit, Alabama shouldn't be able to play 2 every year). I'm happy that some schools are making an effort but playing 1 neutral site game every year or a rival doesn't make you a badass. I applaud FL/GA/SC for what they are doing but also people should really be criticizing schools like A&M for not having a single quality OOC opponent just like I see people criticizing the lesser Big 12 schools.

And you didn't read the part where I said Texas and Oklahoma would be fine. The rest, well, I just don't believe every conference game being a BCS-caliber one as an excuse, whether it's the Big XII or SEC or B1G or PAC. A bad BCS team playing fluff is just another fluff team in a BCS conference. The only thing propping them up is hype and the conference logo stitched onto the jersey.

To recap, out of 30 OOC games:8 are against FCS16 are against SBC (5), MAC (2), C-USA (5), AAC (2), and non-BCS independents(2)----only 3 of these are away games6 are against other Power 5 conference members and Notre Dame----3 of these are neutral site games, Oklahoma will be the only B12 team traveling to a hostile stadium to face an elite foe)

According to CBS, Oklahoma can brag on this, since they go to Notre Dame for 2013.

To recap, out of 30 OOC games:8 are against FCS16 are against SBC (5), MAC (2), C-USA (5), AAC (2), and non-BCS independents(2)----only 3 of these are away games6 are against other Power 5 conference members and Notre Dame----3 of these are neutral site games, Oklahoma will be the only B12 team traveling to a hostile stadium to face an elite foe)

To recap, out of 56 OOC games:EVERY SEC school plays an FCS team (compared to only 8 in the Big 12) and Alabama even plays 2.27 are against SBC (8), MAC (6), C-USA (7), AAC (4), MWC (1) and non-BCS independent (1)----only 3 of these are away games(that's 1 game shy of half of the SEC's OOC schedule which is about the same as the Big 12 which is 1 game more than half, plus when you factor in nonBCS+FCS the Big 12 clearly has more qualitly non BCS OOC games).

14 are against other Power 5 conference members...here's the difference all the rest is B/S.

The Big 12 plays a 9 game conference schedule meaning everyone plays 9 BCS level opponents + they have 6 of them have a 10th on the schedule and 4 others do not (KU, KSU, TT, Baylor).

The SEC plays an 8 game conference schedule schedule meaning everyone plays 8 BCS level opponents + they all try to have a 9th on the schedule, however 3 do not (Texas A&M, Kentucky, Arkansas) but 3 have a 10th BCS level rival scheduled to make up for it (FL, GA, SC).

If you want to say FL/GA/SC are better than KU/KSU/TT/Bay then fine but to insinuate that the SEC just has flat out more difficult OOC schedules than the Big 12 is mostly false. The SEC has a tougher conference schedule granted, which is why their champ will make the playoff 90% of the time, however that's besides the point.

If any B12 team goes undefeated they'll make it in regardless of the SOS, with 1 loss most likely Texas/OU/OkSU/TCU/WVU would still make it in with their recently history and OOC schedule but likely not TT/KU/KSU/Baylor or ISU.

Alabama will only play one FCS, GSU is now FBS. If your going to ban FCS, then the SB, MAC and CUSA should be banned also. These teams arent any better than top level FCS teams.

Selective and disparaging commentaries about the SEC is not going to improve the Big Twelve situation if there is a real situation. Whatever the SEC has done and continues to do in football has been highly successful.

The BIG acted, the SEC acted, the PAC12 had made their moves, the ACC acted and counter-acted. Did the Big Twelve act enough? That's for them to decide. If the Big 12 or any other conference sees a need to be defensive about their structure and scheduling, then does that indicate a problem? I don't see where the negativity about the most successful is going to help their explanations about not having a conference championship game and what consistency there is with their three out-of-conference games each. Do what works with one's wishes.

If the Big Twelve is delighted in what they currently have and have no intentions to change or add to their format, then embrace it without trying to devalue successful structures elsewhere.

Results shall show in the financial outcomes, pollings, and title pursuits, soon enough.

BTW, technically labeling Louisville as AAC (but really merits based from the BCS BE of that moment), and headed to the ACC, shows tags can be misleading. The Bishon Cutter nailed it on that point.

I suppose the fact that the Big XII is stuck at 10, people assume there should be some urgency to get to 12.

I'm sure WVU wold appreciate some closer neighbors. Other than that.... what's the problem ?This conference is set up to reap a nice windfall in terms of TV dollars. (Texas in paticular, I'm betting that ESPN isn't so fond of their commitment to the LHN right now).

When you get the powers that be together and ask if they feel enthused about potentially reducing their TV revenues by 1/6, just so they can have a CCG,there are enough NO votes to sustain the status quo. The Big XII has had more national championship contenders derailed by the CCG than any other conference.For them to go to 12, they'd want to put the OK schools in the North division. That doesn't solve WVU's isolation. They evidently do not see expasnion candidates that can "pull their own weight". At this point, they may regret passing on Louisville, but that ship has now sailed.

With the ACC granting of rights, it appears unliekly that there will be movement between the "Power 5" for a while. If one of those conferences wants to expand,they may HAVE to look to the AAC, MWC, BYU. I get the sense, that we are settling into the current format for a while.

Next realignment movement:Does the Sun-Belt reel in a #12 (preferably a FB school) ?Does the Big East expand to 12 ? If they take 2 from the A-10 (reducing A-10 from 14 to 12), does the A-10 sit tight at 12 ?What is long-term status of UMass as MAC FBS affiliate. Does MAC try to expand with more FULL mmebers ? Any action involving: Horizon / MVC / Summit / U of North Dakota / WAC ?Any action involving: A-10 / CAA / SoCon / AE / MAAC / NEC / NJIT ?

I suppose the fact that the Big XII is stuck at 10, people assume there should be some urgency to get to 12.

I'm sure WVU wold appreciate some closer neighbors. Other than that.... what's the problem ?This conference is set up to reap a nice windfall in terms of TV dollars. (Texas in paticular, I'm betting that ESPN isn't so fond of their commitment to the LHN right now).

When you get the powers that be together and ask if they feel enthused about potentially reducing their TV revenues by 1/6, just so they can have a CCG,there are enough NO votes to sustain the status quo. The Big XII has had more national championship contenders derailed by the CCG than any other conference.For them to go to 12, they'd want to put the OK schools in the North division. That doesn't solve WVU's isolation. They evidently do not see expasnion candidates that can "pull their own weight". At this point, they may regret passing on Louisville, but that ship has now sailed.

This is the main point, did adding Utah and Colorado really help the PAC10? Before you blindly yell YES, people should really look into the media/bowl payouts. The PAC12 already had these bowls games and a competitive TV deal that likely would have stayed in the same amount per school that they got. The fbCCG was the only real benefit they gained and like you put above the Big 12 doesn't consider that a benefit.

There are no problems with the Big 12 internally other than WVU complaining about travel (which they knew before they joined) and some of the lesser schools worried about possibly missing on on the playoffs for not having a CCG (OkSU/TT). All the schools know that if they go undefeated and win the conference they'll make the playoffs and most realize that if they schedule at least 1 quality OOC game and win the conference with only one loss they'd also make it, and the rest are just happy to still be in an AQ conference and not the AAC or MWC (ISU/Baylor).

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

Let's face it, who lands in the playoffs is going to generate a fuss each year. They can come up with a so-called reputable selection committee from different parts of the country and refine the working criteria in the process. As with the old BCS, fine differences influence the polling processes. One or two teams shall be a given by consensus, but whose #3 and #4, in particularly, shall usually carry some level of controversy. The system doesn't allow everyone to play the same schedules and common opponents shall be few unless it is two teams from the same conference under question. After a few years or more fuss and pressure, they'll expand the playoff group to eight thinking that may solve the issues with just 4. It won't end the complaints though.

Not having a CCG may work in the B12's favor some years, while in other years it may prove a detriment per the selection process. Nearly every year with the BCS, there was some scenario that emerged that did not happen before. That's where the 4 super-conferences idea came about. Each super-conference would send a rep to the playoffs each year. Well, that hasn't emerged to fruitation, and won't for a long time if ever. There's too many teams and conferences involved, and the politics, conflicts, and logistics are too immense to go there anytime soon. And really, one conference for any given year, could have the top two or three teams, which really questions the rationale for every lofty conference delivering a rep if it's really about the very best nationally.

Individual schools and conferences can try to make their schedules tougher, but won/loss records remain such a prime decider. Any rep needs some choice, convincing wins, and show as close to 13-0 or 12-0 as may be reachable and compared to others reaching or near reaching the same outcome.

This is the main point, did adding Utah and Colorado really help the PAC10? Before you blindly yell YES, people should really look into the media/bowl payouts. The PAC12 already had these bowls games and a competitive TV deal that likely would have stayed in the same amount per school that they got. The fbCCG was the only real benefit they gained and like you put above the Big 12 doesn't consider that a benefit.

Yes and no...Colorado yes, Utah no. When you consider UC's student body, and what Colorado (the state) is to California, it was worth it. And that's on top of how long the PAC wanted Colorado.

Utah...ehh...maybe the program that looked the most ready to athletically represent the conference in the revenue sports, but the market was kind of claimed by the time the conference took Arizona and Colorado. I've gotten into a bit of a debate about this on another board. I think Utah's quite the stinker so far...but the thing both schools add to the PAC's benefit? Well, they're not in the Big XII. So, of the big flagship schools in the area, the SEC, B1G, and PAC have them if the Big XII already doesn't.

So, the value of the PAC expansion was really over saturation. They are, and the Big XII really isn't outside of the Texas-Oklahoma-Kansas swath.

Funny you should mention keeping the Big 12 out of television markets and limiting them to a small geographic area. The current Big 12 is starting to feel a whole lot like the old SWC in the early '90's before its untimely demise. Think about it--its numerically smaller than the other major conferences, has many of the same members, and similarly lacks the star power that the SWC did. The Longhorns, Red Raiders, Bears, and Horned Frogs are all reprising their old roles and the Oklahoma Sooners are playing the part of the A&M Aggies. Granted some of the supporting cast is a little different--you have WVU, Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, and Oklahoma St in lieu of SMU, Houston, and Rice--a modest improvement but considering how the other major conferences have upgraded since 1991 it seems to me that the Big 12/SWC is right back where they started.

Funny you should mention keeping the Big 12 out of television markets and limiting them to a small geographic area. The current Big 12 is starting to feel a whole lot like the old SWC in the early '90's before its untimely demise. Think about it--its numerically smaller than the other major conferences, has many of the same members, and similarly lacks the star power that the SWC did. The Longhorns, Red Raiders, Bears, and Horned Frogs are all reprising their old roles and the Oklahoma Sooners are playing the part of the A&M Aggies. Granted some of the supporting cast is a little different--you have WVU, Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, and Oklahoma St in lieu of SMU, Houston, and Rice--a modest improvement but considering how the other major conferences have upgraded since 1991 it seems to me that the Big 12/SWC is right back where they started.

Well, they could technically get the markets. They just don't get big, reputable flagship or research schools. The biggest schools within or just outside of the footprint are Houston and UNM...those don't do very much for the conference. You have to go across the Gulf to get to the directional Florida schools, and while those two are huge institutions, they aren't the ones in the SEC or ACC. Same goes for SDSU...big school...but a "PAC-reject."

It gets to a point where schools like CSU, USU, and UNM look like the best options because of the relative size and location that fit the other "metrics." I don't see them getting much love as future, desired member institutions.

I agree, though, about it becoming the sWc. The Big XII wasn't supposed to be just the Big 8 + SWC, as there was supposed to be one or two western schools for Colorado and Nebraska "to have." No, instead it became that when Texas politics intervened. The schools that actually pushed the footprint into respectability are gone, and now it's 8/10ths schools in three states...and I suspect that if expansion does occur, that 8 will become at least a 9.

Guys,The B12 needs a CCG. To get that at this point is complicated. West Virginia is on an island and Fox would love to be in the Florida market. This leaves a Conundrum - How to get into Florida, and not have both them and West Virginia isolated from the rest of the conference? Answer - You need to add schools that bridge the gap.Question - How do you do this with the ACC's GOR in place?Answer - Grab other schools.

Then use a combination of zipper format and Pod system for scheduling. IE: Each team plays 1 crossover rival (West Virginia vs USF) then each team plays the three other closest schools in their pod (West Virginia vs Cincinnati, Northern Illinois, Iowa St.). Of the other 4 games in conference, 2 will be against random opponents in their own division (West Virginia vs either of the Kansas and Oklahoma schools here) and the other two against 2 random opponents from the other division (West Virginia vs any other of the Texas schools, Louisiana Tech, Southern Miss or UCF). This still leaves 3 OOC games a year for flexibility. An option can exist that if two schools in conference wish to, they can have a game against each other substituting for 1 of their OOC games.What do you guys think of this?

Guys,The B12 needs a CCG. To get that at this point is complicated. West Virginia is on an island and Fox would love to be in the Florida market. This leaves a Conundrum - How to get into Florida, and not have both them and West Virginia isolated from the rest of the conference? Answer - You need to add schools that bridge the gap.Question - How do you do this with the ACC's GOR in place?Answer - Grab other schools.

Then use a combination of zipper format and Pod system for scheduling. IE: Each team plays 1 crossover rival (West Virginia vs USF) then each team plays the three other closest schools in their pod (West Virginia vs Cincinnati, Northern Illinois, Iowa St.). Of the other 4 games in conference, 2 will be against random opponents in their own division (West Virginia vs either of the Kansas and Oklahoma schools here) and the other two against 2 random opponents from the other division (West Virginia vs any other of the Texas schools, Louisiana Tech, Southern Miss or UCF). This still leaves 3 OOC games a year for flexibility. An option can exist that if two schools in conference wish to, they can have a game against each other substituting for 1 of their OOC games.What do you guys think of this?

If only the forums here have a "Like" button, lol, I would gladly approve this post for great analysis. But seriously, sooner of later, although the Big 12 doesn't wanna admit it yet because the conference feels "okay" of not having future expansion, they have to find at least 2 more members to bring back a CCG.

This thinking is good, but not the B12 mindest for now. But the point is right, the B12 could find two more for a CCG; and it could be decent schools (outside the other big 4 conferences), though certainly not hot items for the moment. All have some baggage with certain assets. Most of the talked about prospects, though most the B12 would outright not consider & reject:

TO THE EAST:

Tulane - The location (New Orleans) alone makes them interesting. Also an AAU school. The problem; a private school with a history of financial concerns per athletics, and struggles to compete.

Rice - Another in Texas, but the Houston area is a plus. AAU & private, comparatively small undergraduate enrollment. Good baseball. Whenever their fb starts to improve, they lose their coaches.

Memphis - There's the market next to the B12 footprint; there's the spectrum of sports; fine bb, struggling fb in SEC area. Not so impressive academically, and Tenn. (some Vandy) carry the state.

Southern Miss. - A lot of potential for new strides & they have shown they can compete with the big boys often. But #3 in Mississippi, which is not a huge state?

East Carolina - Another directional school that would create another isolated outpost.

USF & UCF - OK, the directional school stuff. But they are growing institutions in the Florida Markets with large student bodies. With a better conference affiliation, their lot shall improve. Still as Cutter & others noted, the SEC and ACC shall remain the top dogs in the state.This would be about tapping into Florida, not bridging.

Bridge to WVU - This shall take more than one school, and the real choices are very few and not so distinguished. Cincy is the most obvious. Northern Illinois, as mentioned, could warrant at least a look. Those further east-- Temple, UCONN, etc., makes logistics even more complicated, and commonality comes into question.

The Service Academies thrust - bring in the 3 service academies under a common fb umbrella. AFA is in the adjacent area. But could they compete well at such a level? Doesn't look appropriate, competition wise.

TO THE WEST:

Some B12 personalities talked about looking eastward, but most of their better choices are in the west. Going west doesn't solve anything with WVU.

BYU - with all the special issues/demands, BYU is still the school that would add a huge plus of fans for the B12.

CSU, UNM - adjacent and prime state schools with potential that could show sooner than much latter. Wyoming - smaller market, but they do have some real, though limited, dedicated fans, and would benefit with CSU with them. USU, a work in progress, but up and coming.

Nevada or UNLV, SDSU - depends on how far west the B12 would seek to go.

Boise State - hot name in fb in recent years, but little else seems attractive..........................

Adding two in the future may solve the B12's CCG issue. But really, very little can bridge any gap. If anything eastward, particularly to the southeast, it just widens it.Maybe it would be a matter of taking a chance on a couple of schools that show potential and have the finances to go with it. They may have to wait for the dividends to show.Other conferences have taken chances on some less proven selections, and later found the picks to be wise decisions. Other selections end up being regrets. A measure of risk is usually involved.

Along with political and individual institutional influences, the B12 may think there is nothing out there valuable enough to go for a CCG right now. On some level, they may be right and can afford to wait.

Of course, if the intent is really there to expand, waiting longer delays the time to ingrain additions and further postpones the total cohesion of the conference as a whole. With the GoR in place, maybe it is not the time to worry so much about somebody leaving; rather, perhaps a good time to get new commitments if they seriously have an eye on anybody that would be realistically available.

I have to ask, what about Marshall? The reason why i ask while it doesn't help them in the strength department for most sports it would help them for scheduling purposes. For example in basketball they would play at west Virginia and then at Marshall. It could add a rivalry game in the conference match ups(even if it might be one sided) With that then they could pick either another Texas school or Louisiana school for the southern division.

I have to ask, what about Marshall? The reason why i ask while it doesn't help them in the strength department for most sports it would help them for scheduling purposes. For example in basketball they would play at west Virginia and then at Marshall. It could add a rivalry game in the conference match ups(even if it might be one sided) With that then they could pick either another Texas school or Louisiana school for the southern division.

Doubt Marshall would ever get a vote for the B12, even by WVU, and that would be forced. They are just not a strong enough candidate for the B12 level.

On the other hand 46566, your question regarding scheduling and partnership is the key consideration.

I looked up calculated driving mileage between Morgantown, WV, and a number of other cities with campuses.

TO:

Cincinnati, OH, 304 miles (UC) - not that close, but between WVU & the northern B12 to the westHuntington, WV, 207 miles (Marshall) - other end of the stateAthens, OH, 151 miles (Ohio U.) - in the region near MarshallPhiladelphia, PA, 307 miles (Temple) - and that's going to the eastStorrs, CT, 531 miles (UConn) - east to New EnglandDeKalb, IL, 593 miles (Northern Ill. U.) - to the westOrlando, FL, 900 miles (UCF) - to the southTampa, FL, 959 miles (USF) - to the southGreenville, NC, 479 miles (ECU) - to the south

Looking at the above, there's little to nothing that offers any kind of geographic bridge for WVU and the rest of the B12.

WVU and how close it is to the SEC?:Lexington, KY, 331 miles (UK) - Kentucky is the closest SEC school.

WVU and how close to the BIG (Big Ten):State College, PA, 180 miles (Penn State) - old east rivalColumbus, OH, 205 miles (Ohio State) - also a neighboring stateCollege Park, MD, 207 miles (U. Maryland) - neighboring & traditional rival

Conclusion:* No real bridge available to WVU for the B12.* WVU is external to the SEC current footprint & probably not that conference's preferred option if they expand again. Been passed on before.* Geographically fits the BIG (Big Ten); but the BIG won't consider them for other reasons (academic profile & market interests- which ACC & SEC have also cited as factors to certain degrees).* The ACC would be the BEST FIT.

If the ACC got Notre Dame for the all-sports commitment, and somehow was able to lure WVU (out of the B12's GoR), and the ACC goes to 16---that would be awesome, and a much more impressive conference, athletically. It would geographically make the conference contiguous again with the loss of Maryland. The academic argument has been way 'over-played', and too often used as an excuse for other reasons and agendas. WVU is a flagship, doctoral degree granting institution, and they have the legions of loyal fans that show--equal or more than much of the ACC.In fb and most other sports for the long-term, WVU would offer the ACC more economic value and better rivalries than, say, UConn or Cincinnati would.Too bad though, there are too many boneheads making the decisions.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum